Southwest 345 Transcript from LGA

[Maximilian_Jenius]

He honestly can't help himself; clinical.

I work in an acute psychiatric facility, as a lead technician. He should stop by for an evaluation. I willing to guess that the diagnosis would be narcissistic personality disorder!



Seriously though, @Cherokee_Cruiser, don't you know that everyone doesn't want their business out on the street on public forums about where they work.

You should respect that.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I completely understand. The right thing to do for privacy would have just been a simple, "I'd rather not say, I'd like to keep it private, hope you understand" kinda thing. Instead, coming back with California Pacific is just wrong, considering that there actually are people who took the plunge there and are now finding no paycheck.

 

[jtrain609]

California Pacific, just like Braniff, is going to make a comeback, and I'll be there when it happens.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

California Pacific, just like Braniff, is going to make a comeback, and I'll be there when it happens.

You mean Eastern

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

More information coming out about this accident: http://online.wsj.com/articles/sout...prior-to-2013-accident-in-new-york-1415508923

According to people on the SWAPA forum, the captain was on a whole lot of people's bid avoidance lists.

 

[derg]

Looks like that goose is cooked.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Ah, the comments are excellent.

 

[e6bflyer]

The NTSB report goes into the avoidance bid issue. I am just curious what the long term fallout of that is. I wasn't aware that my avoidance bids were being tracked by anyone...in fact I was told in IQ that they was no record of them. Apparently that is not the case.

 

[jynxyjoe]

The NTSB report goes into the avoidance bid issue. I am just curious what the long term fallout of that is. I wasn't aware that my avoidance bids were being tracked by anyone...in fact I was told in IQ that they was no record of them. Apparently that is not the case.

You watch, won't be any bid avoidance in next round of contracts. Don't deal with the problem (piss poor management) just hide it.

Sometimes, CAs need to downgrade. Its rarely needed, but it is needed with some guys.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

How'd you do for Dec e6b?

 

[e6bflyer]

Blank line. The last one. Hope the Harlingen hotel puts on a good Christmas dinner. You?

 

[Hacker15e]

According to people on the SWAPA forum, the captain was on a whole lot of people's bid avoidance lists.

Does the union or the company have any oversight of these bid avoidance lists? Do they put any extra scrutiny on people who are popularly avoided? Do you think there's any reason to do so?

 

[derg]

Unofficially, when I was pretty senior and "in the loop" on the mad dog, I was asked by someone to fly with a person that was on a lot of "Do Not Fly With" lists, but I declined.

I'm not an evaluator and if there's a problem, they need to take care of it.

But, unofficially, if you end up on a lot of DNF lists, sometimes they take note at some airlines.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Does the union or the company have any oversight of these bid avoidance lists? Do they put any extra scrutiny on people who are popularly avoided? Do you think there's any reason to do so?

Most companies weren't that proactive, at least my experience. If the Union runs your PBS, you might get a heads up from them. Managment will then stick their fingers in their ear. Well, maybe not anymore.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Does the union or the company have any oversight of these bid avoidance lists?

Not that I know of. It's new to me, though. AirTran's philosophy was that if you couldn't fly with someone, then you were the person who was unprofessional, so it wasn't tolerated. You fly with everyone, or you have the balls to write them up if they're unsafe. No avoidance bids.

Do they put any extra scrutiny on people who are popularly avoided? Do you think there's any reason to do so?

Eh, I'm old school, so I tend to agree with our CP that you should fly with everyone and just deal with it like a man. I've flown with people I can't stand, but I just say "yes sir" until they try to kill me or get me violated. If avoidance bids are just going to be one more form of pilot scrutiny, then I'd say get rid of them. There's already enough looking over our shoulders all the time.

 

[Hacker15e]

Most companies weren't that proactive, at least my experience. If the Union runs your PBS, you might get a heads up from them. Managment will then stick their fingers in their ear. Well, maybe not anymore.

So, does the union just give those pilots information ("Hey, a lot of people don't like flying with you"), or is there some other attempt to find out why people are avoiding them?

I would think there's a very delicate balance to weigh there for the union.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So, does the union just give those pilots information ("Hey, a lot of people don't like flying with you"), or is there some other attempt to find out why people are avoiding them?

I would think there's a very delicate balance to weigh there for the union.

That sort of thing is usually handled by Professional Standards. They would talk to the people who have had problems with the pilot at issue to see what's going on, and then gently try to nudge him in the right direction to not be such a jerk. In my experience, it's rarely effective, but it does sometimes work, so it's worth a try.

 

[Hacker15e]

That sort of thing is usually handled by Professional Standards. They would talk to the people who have had problems with the pilot at issue to see what's going on, and then gently try to nudge him in the right direction to not be such a jerk. In my experience, it's rarely effective, but it does sometimes work, so it's worth a try.

What kind of hammer does Pro Standards swing? Can they fire...or revoke a qualification....or penalize money....? What are the possible ramificiations of being on the wrong side of them?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

What kind of hammer does Pro Standards swing? Can they fire...or revoke a qualification....or penalize money....? What are the possible ramificiations of being on the wrong side of them?

Nothing. That's why it's rarely effective. It's basically just a method of trying to talk sense into someone, pilot to pilot. If they don't listen, then Pro Stands has no hammer to wield.

 

[jynxyjoe]

So, does the union just give those pilots information ("Hey, a lot of people don't like flying with you"), or is there some other attempt to find out why people are avoiding them?

I would think there's a very delicate balance to weigh there for the union.

It's not my area of expertise, if you enioy this stuff work grievances when you get to a regional and you can get a good idea how mechanics of a union work. We stayed out of politics, and I generally revile politicians, union or otherwise.

When pbs came along a guy popped up on ever FOs bid. A bunch of ex captains like me then came in a couple months later, we all took our turns flying with him then added his name to our list, for a while I spent 3 months, every trip, with the guy because I was the only idiot left. I tried. Called pro stands, pro stands had already been all over the guy and he told them to screw off. Pro stands washed hands of him. He was downgraded later for a separate issue. Those are the facts as I know them.

Story: Somewhere in there because our DO was an ex pilot and a good man, and because safety was taken seriously at Mesaba (not we crashed one again lets act straight this week in front of the feds seriously) concerns were elevated to management levels. The separate issue that got him downgraded got me asking questions because I flew so much with him and it seemed clear that management knew it but kept kicking the can down the road. Management isn't perfect and neither is the union. We all failed on that one but, once again, the swiss cheese model saved us.

Southwest will probably be the leader in this going forward and I hope to see some guidance soon.